War on the Electoral College

[FrancisMarion]

I bet this was in many Sunday papers today:


"It's a terrible system," said Paul Finkelman, a law professor at Albany Law School who teaches this year at Duke University. "There's no other electoral system in the world where the person with the most votes doesn't win."

http://www.startribune.com/politics/171950061.html?refer=y

So it appears that the Democrats are all for equality in every aspect of humanity. Unless, of course you live in the country. Bumpkin.

[ClydeCoulter]

I see a push for a true democracy coming to a theatre near us :(

[angelatc]

It isn't just the Democrats. Saul Anuzis pushed hard for the National Popular Vote initiative. IN Illinois, it was passed with almost little or no public discussion.

I consider it a done deal. Once the Democrats decide to do something, they never stop. Republicans might play defense, nothing more.

[farreri]

Good riddance to it. I'm surprised not everybody here is against it. Isn't it just another socialist-like program trying to ensure "equality"? Why should my vote be lessened because people chose to live in the country? And besides, politicians pretty much only concentrate on states or areas that are neck-in-neck in the polls.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

300+ million people, popular vote or electoral college = plain oppression.

Any country that size is a monster and oppressor of its people by virtue of its size alone.

[supermario21]

Why should libertarians be against it? Remember we live in a constitutional republic not a pure democracy.

[farreri]

300+ million people, popular vote or electoral college = plain oppression.

Any country that size is a monster and oppressor of its people by virtue of its size alone.
Proportional representation. Best way, IMO.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Why should libertarians be against it? Remember we live in a constitutional republic not a pure democracy.

Because trying to represent a collective body of 300+ million people is absurd! No system works good enough to do it.

[TheTexan]

300+ million people, popular vote or electoral college = plain oppression.

Any country that size is a monster and oppressor of its people by virtue of its size alone.

Indeed. It's literally impossible. We all have different priorities, want different things. There is no "one size fits all" approach that makes everybody happy. And to attempt that is to guarantee oppression.. for everybody.

[FrancisMarion]

Two things in my opinion.

One, any usurping of states power is a move in the wrong direction. One big argument for the National Popular Vote is that the states that are already decided "red" or "blue" states, do not see attention from the presidential campaigns. Well, guess what, if it was a national vote with no states sending their representation through the Electoral College its going to be even more dramatic. Can we say campaigning in the Northeast, Atlanta, Florida, Denver and the West Coast? That would about do it.

Under that circumstance, the urban areas would get most of the platform and concentration, and subsequent political concessions. Next thing you know, we will have some disgruntled citizens simply based on where they live and the population density (and for good reason). Know that would be just fine and dandy if the federal government remained limited in their scope. But they do not and frankly its not in their nature. They are the Feds. If I lived in the sticks I would still be affected by the laws and appropriations of the Feds.

Now we come back full circle, any powers of the states that are usurped means we are heading in the wrong direction.

[AGRP]

Go ahead and end it. Hopefully the other 48 states outside of NY and CA will throw a big stink over not having the power they thought they did. The quicker people wake up the quicker this country heals.

[Simple]

Article I section 2: "...The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand"

We haven't followed the Constitution on this issue since the 30's if memory serves me correctly. If we want better representation out of the Congress and the Electoral College all we need to do is follow the Constitution instead of trying to find a fix.

[angelatc]

Because trying to represent a collective body of 300+ million people is absurd! No system works good enough to do it.

The point isn't to represent 300 million people. The point is to represent 50 states.

Of course the liberals want direct democracy. They hate the fact that the people in the city can't rule over the rural people.

[erowe1]

Article I section 2: "...The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand"

We haven't followed the Constitution on this issue since the 30's if memory serves me correctly.

Are you saying we do exceed 1 for every 30,000? That would mean we have over 10,000 representatives.

[ronpaulfollower999]

Are you saying we do exceed 1 for every 30,000? That would mean we have over 10,000 representatives.

Clearly the founders didn't' intend on the nation becoming so big.

[dbill27]

Are you saying we do exceed 1 for every 30,000? That would mean we have over 10,000 representatives.

i think he's interpreting it as saying we should have one rep for every 30,000 citizens

[dbill27]

Clearly the founders didn't' intend on the nation becoming so big.

why do you assume that? we could easily have 10,000 representatives. The Dallas Cowboys stadium can fit 100,000 plus people. Why can't we have 10,000 representatives in congress voting?

[erowe1]

i think he's interpreting it as saying we should have one rep for every 30,000 citizens

That's what it looks like. But that's the opposite of what the Constitution says.

I'd be all for a much larger House. But going by the Constitution, that size of roughly 10,000 is the maximum size, not the minimum.

[angelatc]

Article I section 2: "...The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand"

We haven't followed the Constitution on this issue since the 30's if memory serves me correctly. If we want better representation out of the Congress and the Electoral College all we need to do is follow the Constitution instead of trying to find a fix.

I think that means the most they can have is one for every 30,000. But I agree - the House of Representatives needs to be much bigger.

[Keith and stuff]

Good riddance to it. I'm surprised not everybody here is against it. Isn't it just another socialist-like program trying to ensure "equality"? Why should my vote be lessened because people chose to live in the country? And besides, politicians pretty much only concentrate on states or areas that are neck-in-neck in the polls.

There are 50 independent states. The people in the states vote as a whole. It makes sense. This is a Constitutional Republic made up of 50 independent states. This isn't a democracy. This is the United States of America.

[Keith and stuff]

I think that means the most they can have is one for every 30,000. But I agree - the House of Representatives needs to be much bigger.

We have 1 representative for every 3300 people in New Hampshire. They get paid a salary of $100 per year. There is no health insurance. There is no pension. They don't have offices. They don't have staff. It damn sure makes sense to me.

[tttppp]

Good riddance to it. I'm surprised not everybody here is against it. Isn't it just another socialist-like program trying to ensure "equality"? Why should my vote be lessened because people chose to live in the country? And besides, politicians pretty much only concentrate on states or areas that are neck-in-neck in the polls.

I agree. I hate the electoral college. I don't like how my vote doesn't count at all.

[farreri]

There are 50 independent states. The people in the states vote as a whole. It makes sense. This is a Constitutional Republic made up of 50 independent states. This isn't a democracy. This is the United States of America.
Ideally, the feds aren't supposed to do anything that's not authorized in the constitution. The POTUS is only supposed to be a figurehead, more or less.

Why would getting rid of the electoral college that lessens my vote because where I live (a city) matter?

[Keith and stuff]

Ideally, the feds aren't supposed to do anything that's not authorized in the constitution. The POTUS is only supposed to be a figurehead, more or less.

Why would getting rid of the electoral college that lessens my vote because where I live (a city) matter?

National popular vote isn't supposed to matter in the US. There are 50 independent states in the US.

[ronpaulfollower999]

I agree. I hate the electoral college. I don't like how my vote doesn't count at all.

When the country was first founded, your vote wouldn't count in many states where electors where chosen by the state legislator.

[tttppp]

When the country was first founded, your vote wouldn't count in many states where electors where chosen by the state legislator.

I don't support that either.

[AuH20]

Agenda 21 would thrive in a world without that pesky electoral college. Just saying.

[Carehn]

Am I the only one that thinks they should fight to the death like gladiators???

[angelatc]

Am I the only one that thinks they should fight to the death like gladiators???

I'm ok with that. At the very least, a "Survivor" style contest instead of the debate format.

[BlackTerrel]

So it appears that the Democrats are all for equality in every aspect of humanity. Unless, of course you live in the country. Bumpkin.

Equality is everyone's vote counts the same.

I think the best system of government is the one where the President is elected by the most votes.

[steph3n]

Equality is everyone's vote counts the same.

I think the best system of government is the one where the President is elected by the most votes.

A popular vote count, doesn't mean your vote is the same. If you go to popular vote may was well skip polling anything but the top 30 cities, they are all that matter.

Those people that feed you every day, make sure you have clothes to wear, ensure there is water to drink, those 'country bumpkins' will have no say at all then.

The fact is, very FEW countries go by just popular vote. That is why so many have to form 'unity governments' because they don't have enough votes to be the ruling party/ president etc. That is due to proportional representation laws. If you go popular vote, that is the only way to ensure at least some say of the minority.

Democracy is not good, it is in fact a disaster.

[tttppp]

A popular vote count, doesn't mean your vote is the same. If you go to popular vote may was well skip polling anything but the top 30 cities, they are all that matter.

Those people that feed you every day, make sure you have clothes to wear, ensure there is water to drink, those 'country bumpkins' will have no say at all then.

So its better that most of the top 30 cities don't have a say, and a very few people make the decisions for them?

[steph3n]

So its better that most of the top 30 cities don't have a say, and a very few people make the decisions for them?

the EC ensures that is not the case. Their vote matters as it is tallied to the states total.
The EC ensures that the nation is represented.

I am an anarchist, my say is never represented ;) I am just presenting to you the other side here.

[tttppp]

the EC ensures that is not the case. Their vote matters as it is tallied to the states total.
The EC ensures that the nation is represented.

I am an anarchist, my say is never represented ;) I am just presenting to you the other side here.

If you are not in a swing state, your vote does not matter.

[steph3n]

If you are not in a swing state, your vote does not matter.

nor would it in a popular vote if you were one of 10s of millions in a rural area.

Either way disenfranchises millions of voters.

the answer is not popular vote. If anything in a representative government plan, it is proportional representation.
Especially with the dominate 2 parties here, it would really mean a lot more to have a 10-15% minority part and a 3-5% minority party representing the people.

[BlackTerrel]

A popular vote count, doesn't mean your vote is the same. If you go to popular vote may was well skip polling anything but the top 30 cities, they are all that matter.

Those people that feed you every day, make sure you have clothes to wear, ensure there is water to drink, those 'country bumpkins' will have no say at all then.

The fact is, very FEW countries go by just popular vote. That is why so many have to form 'unity governments' because they don't have enough votes to be the ruling party/ president etc. That is due to proportional representation laws. If you go popular vote, that is the only way to ensure at least some say of the minority.

Democracy is not good, it is in fact a disaster.

This makes no sense at all. In a popular vote the one single person in the country will have the same say as the one single person in the city.

Of course combined the 30 million people in greater NYC will have more say than the 20,000 people in Pratville, Alabama - but why wouldn't they?

[steph3n]

This makes no sense at all. In a popular vote the one single person in the country will have the same say as the one single person in the city.

Of course combined the 30 million people in greater NYC will have more say than the 20,000 people in Pratville, Alabama - but why wouldn't they?

Because they are city people thinking city things, that don't know the impact of their agenda and policy on their 'fly over' land that brings them all the goodness they consume. The majority should never rule over the minority in such a way. It is bad for all in the end.

If those people are not represented properly, and according to their desires, they will make their own way to be represented, presenting us with Civil War II, only then the city folk will be slaughtered and their vote will have no meaning in the end, except their own death.

[TheTexan]

Secession is the answer to this problem. It's the answer to many problems, actually.

[tttppp]

Because they are city people thinking city things, that don't know the impact of their agenda and policy on their 'fly over' land that brings them all the goodness they consume. The majority should never rule over the minority in such a way. It is bad for all in the end.

If those people are not represented properly, and according to their desires, they will make their own way to be represented, presenting us with Civil War II, only then the city folk will be slaughtered and their vote will have no meaning in the end, except their own death.


Id prefer it if the majority ruled as opposed to the minority. Plus a system where every vote counts is better. Either go to majority rules, or eliminate parties on the ballot, that way people will have to use their brain when voting, thus making all states swing states.

[Ender]

Democracy is two wolves and one lamb deciding what's for dinner.

A Constitutional Republic is two wolves and one lamb deciding what's for dinner- but lamb is not on the menu.

[steph3n]

Id prefer it if the majority ruled as opposed to the minority. Plus a system where every vote counts is better. Either go to majority rules, or eliminate parties on the ballot, that way people will have to use their brain when voting, thus making all states swing states.
Enjoy your self made tyranny, may you ever starve to death, you have only yourself to blame.

[steph3n]

Secession is the answer to this problem. It's the answer to many problems, actually.

I wonder if a county/parish has every tried to secede from a state and the nation :D

[ronpaulfollower999]

Aristotle called democracy the worst form of government. There is a reason we are a republic.

[Paulatized]

I wonder if a county/parish has every tried to secede from a state and the nation :D

Ever heard of the Free State of Jones? http://www.amazon.com/Free-State-Jones-Mississippis-Longest/dp/0807854670

There is also another book on the subject called "The Echo of the Black Horn," written by a neighbor of mine. http://www.amazon.com/The-echo-black-horn-authentic/dp/B0007EMIXG Interesting reading although very dryly written.

I live about 3 miles from the Jones County line, which happens to also be the same Jones County the Motorhome Diaries crew came through and were stopped.

[PaulConventionWV]

Good riddance to it. I'm surprised not everybody here is against it. Isn't it just another socialist-like program trying to ensure "equality"? Why should my vote be lessened because people chose to live in the country? And besides, politicians pretty much only concentrate on states or areas that are neck-in-neck in the polls.

Because the biggest voice in the country is not the individual, it's the state. The sovereign states of America are loosely congregated so as to provide an association between separate local governments under a very weak federal government. The reasons for the electoral college are to support the interests of the individual state. Popular votes are one of the main indicators of true democracy, something we don't want. We want our local governments to have more authority than the federal government. If we have the individual directly tied to the federal government, then we don't have a republic. We have the two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. That's democracy, and it's a bad thing.

[PaulConventionWV]

300+ million people, popular vote or electoral college = plain oppression.

Any country that size is a monster and oppressor of its people by virtue of its size alone.

I've long avoided that conclusion, but you may be right. It seems impossible to avoid the fact that 300+ million people cannot be counted on to govern themselves or even think for themselves. That's why I wish Jackson hadn't had stars in his eyes when he made the Louisiana Purchase and stayed with his original conviction that the Purchase was unconstitutional.

[PaulConventionWV]

Because trying to represent a collective body of 300+ million people is absurd! No system works good enough to do it.

//

[pochy1776]

IRONY: The NPV is being advertized here

[gwax23]

I suggest everyone who hasnt watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

Anyone who thinks an election with the popular vote would only be focused on the cities is plain wrong. After NYC the population of cities in America drop drastically. By the time you get to the 10th largest city (San jose) your already under a million people. Adding all top 10 cities only gives you roughly 25 million people. Compare that to the remaining 275 million. Yea so just campaigning in cities wont cut it.

It might not be perfect but its a hell of a lot better then the current system. Anyone who thinks its better the minority rule the majority (in this case rural compared to urban/suburban) just because the rural vote might be more sympathetic to our cause then the urban vote is going against libertarian principles.

Popular vote is the way to go but for the legislatures we need proportional voting with party lists.

[belian78]

I was having this conversation with my friend on FB last night actually. Can't believe that people support getting rid of the EC, especially using the justification that the majority should always be able to dictate reality to the minority. Really? Majority rule is ok on a national level, but not on a statewide level? My understanding is that the electors (save for Maine and Nevada) vote with the popular vote of their state. I called my friend out on the hypocrisy, and didn't hear anything back after that.

I live in a state where our Governor was elected by 3 counties, he only won popular vote in 3 counties but yet he is Governor of an entire state. That is exactly what you will see nationally if the EC is done away with.

[erowe1]

Adding all top 10 cities only gives you roughly 25 million people.

That's not true. If you count the whole metropolitan area, which you should, the top 10 cities are about 80 million. I didn't add down the list, but I'd say that within the top 50 cities you would have about half the nation's population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

A few years ago I would have had a gutteral reaction against going to a popular vote, with talk about republics, state sovereignty, and such. But now it's harder for me to see a big difference. Democracy stinks with or without an electoral college. No group of people should be able to impose rulers on other people against their wills. And I don't really see why it matters if the winning group makes up 50.1% of the 100 million who vote or 49.9% of them.

[Keith and stuff]

I wonder if a county/parish has every tried to secede from a state and the nation :D

It happened in New Hampshire but only lasted 3 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Indian_Stream

[tttppp]

Enjoy your self made tyranny, may you ever starve to death, you have only yourself to blame.

Blame for what? Finding a way for each vote to count? What system would you use by the way? Do you suggest banning voting altogether?

[Uriah]

The point isn't to represent 300 million people. The point is to represent 50 states.

If this is the case, then why do we have a House of Representatives? The Senate represents the states and by the insistence of many founders, the House represents the people.

[erowe1]

Blame for what? Finding a way for each vote to count? What system would you use by the way? Do you suggest banning voting altogether?

What is your reasoning in thinking that each vote doesn't count now but it would if we got rid of the electoral college?

[mad cow]

The N.Y.C. metropolitan area has a greater population than the 15 least populated States.The L.A. metro area is more than the least ten.Chicago is somewhere in between.
According to the Constitution,the States are supposed to elect the President,and this has always been my position.
However,going to a pure democracy might spur massive secession movements nationwide in the only types of States I would want to live in anyway,I might just have to rethink that position.

[belian78]

The N.Y.C. metropolitan area has a greater population than the 15 least populated States.The L.A. metro area is more than the least ten.Chicago is somewhere in between.
According to the Constitution,the States are supposed to elect the President,and this has always been my position.
However,going to a pure democracy might spur massive secession movements nationwide in the only types of States I would want to live in anyway,I might just have to rethink that position.
Doesn't matter, w/o an EC all candidates have to do is go to the most populated areas and promise as much shit as they can and poof, they're elected.

[tttppp]

What is your reasoning in thinking that each vote doesn't count now but it would if we got rid of the electoral college?

Your vote doesn't count in non swing states now. For example, here in CT people just look for the democrat and select him. There is no chance of anyone else winning CT. So my vote is worthless. If we switched to a popular vote, all votes are equal. There are no swing states that get all the attention. Or you could eliminate labeling parties on ballots, that way voters could not easily chose democrat and would be forced to actually know the candidates. In this case, my vote at least has a chance of counting.

[steph3n]

Blame for what? Finding a way for each vote to count? What system would you use by the way? Do you suggest banning voting altogether?
May as well ban voting, it is useless, and will be with either system. The two parties will still rule it and no real choice will be presented.

[steph3n]

Your vote doesn't count in non swing states now. For example, here in CT people just look for the democrat and select him. There is no chance of anyone else winning CT. So my vote is worthless. If we switched to a popular vote, all votes are equal. There are no swing states that get all the attention. Or you could eliminate labeling parties on ballots, that way voters could not easily chose democrat and would be forced to actually know the candidates. In this case, my vote at least has a chance of counting.

no, there won't be swing states there will just be campaigning in NY, IL, CA, TX, FL, DC, NJ nothing else will matter, Ct won't matter, no use in voting, The big cities decided for you.

[tttppp]

May as well ban voting, it is useless, and will be with either system. The two parties will still rule it and no real choice will be presented.

That doesn't answer my question. Plus its hard for the two parties to dominate when they can't list their party on the ballot.

[tttppp]

no, there won't be swing states there will just be campaigning in NY, IL, CA, TX, FL, DC, NJ nothing else will matter, Ct won't matter, no use in voting, The big cities decided for you.

Wrong. My vote will count just as much as someone in NY. Either way, its better for the majority to have the say, not the minority.

[erowe1]

Your vote doesn't count in non swing states now. For example, here in CT people just look for the democrat and select him. There is no chance of anyone else winning CT. So my vote is worthless. If we switched to a popular vote, all votes are equal. There are no swing states that get all the attention. Or you could eliminate labeling parties on ballots, that way voters could not easily chose democrat and would be forced to actually know the candidates. In this case, my vote at least has a chance of counting.

As unlikely as it is that you could make the difference of who wins the electors of the state of CT, do you really think that you would have a greater chance of making the difference in a single nationwide vote?

[Uriah]

Because the biggest voice in the country is not the individual, it's the state. The sovereign states of America are loosely congregated so as to provide an association between separate local governments under a very weak federal government. The reasons for the electoral college are to support the interests of the individual state. Popular votes are one of the main indicators of true democracy, something we don't want. We want our local governments to have more authority than the federal government. If we have the individual directly tied to the federal government, then we don't have a republic. We have the two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. That's democracy, and it's a bad thing.

^^^What he said.^^^

For those of you that find a direct democracy appealing: Do you realize that a push for a direct popular vote, if successful, naturally will lead to a push for nationwide ballot initiatives? Money will win out. Whomever has more money for advertising will win in most cases. Every right you were born with will end up on the ballot. Democracies end due to internal decay. They become morally depleted.

The United States of America is exactly that -- united.... states. Our federal government was created to represent the several sovereign states. The union of the several states created the federal government and therefore it is the right of the states to have a voice in the selection of their administrators. Of course, each individual state may choose how it's say in said selection, will proceed.

[tttppp]

As unlikely as it is that you could make the difference of who wins the electors of the state of CT, do you really think that you would have a greater chance of making the difference in a single nationwide vote?

That's not the point. The point is that you don't know the outcome of a popular vote ahead of time. The way things are now, you know the winner of your state before you even vote, so what motivation do I have to vote in my state?

[tttppp]

^^^What he said.^^^

For those of you that find a direct democracy appealing: Do you realize that a push for a direct popular vote, if successful, naturally will lead to a push for nationwide ballot initiatives? Money will win out. Whomever has more money for advertising will win in most cases. Every right you were born with will end up on the ballot. Democracies end due to internal decay. They become morally depleted.

The United States of America is exactly that -- united.... states. Our federal government was created to represent the several sovereign states. The union of the several states created the federal government and therefore it is the right of the states to have a voice in the selection of their administrators. Of course, each individual state may choose how it's say in said selection, will proceed.

You can take the money out of politics and create a different system. A national vote does not lead to more coruption unles you want it to.

[erowe1]

its better for the majority to have the say, not the minority.

I don't really see why that is the case. But let's say it is. Are you maybe making a mountain out of a molehill?

In order for someone to lose the popular vote and win the electoral college, the election has to be so close to a tie that the slightest change could have swung it either way. The difference between the majority and the minority in that case would be virtually negligible.

[erowe1]

That's not the point. The point is that you don't know the outcome of a popular vote ahead of time. The way things are now, you know the winner of your state before you even vote, so what motivation do I have to vote in my state?

If knowing ahead of time is what makes the difference, then look at it this way:
In a popular vote, you would know ahead of time that your vote wouldn't make a bit of difference in the outcome, so what motivation would you have to vote?

I don't really see why your argument favors the popular vote over the electoral college.



ETA: Come to think of it, given the reasoning you're using, it could actually go the other way, if you want to consider the influence you can have beyond just voting.

In 2004 in CT if you and others along with you wanted to make the difference in the presidential election, you would have been able to win all 7 of CT's electors for Bush instead of Kerry just by getting 70,000 people to switch their votes.

And in the weeks leading up to the election, you could have gotten CT to show up in polls as a swing state, thus forcing the candidates to campaign there (as if that's a good thing), just by getting half that many people to change their minds.

You would be able to do all that by working locally.

In a national election, you could do all that and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

[FrancisMarion]

That's not the point. The point is that you don't know the outcome of a popular vote ahead of time. The way things are now, you know the winner of your state before you even vote, so what motivation do I have to vote in my state?

Principle? For the Record?

[tttppp]

I don't really see why that is the case. But let's say it is. Are you maybe making a mountain out of a molehill?

In order for someone to lose the popular vote and win the electoral college, the election has to be so close to a tie that the slightest change could have swung it either way. The difference between the majority and the minority in that case would be virtually negligible.

Yes, but the elections are ultimately decided by the swing states, minority. The outcome is already known for the rest of the states. Votes in swing states simply count more than votes in other states. Therefore the minority is making decisions for the majority.

[mad cow]

Doesn't matter, w/o an EC all candidates have to do is go to the most populated areas and promise as much shit as they can and poof, they're elected.

Exactly.And then all the 20 or so least populated States,and perhaps rural areas of some of the most populated States,have to do is secede.
Win-Win.

[tttppp]

If knowing ahead of time is what makes the difference, then look at it this way:
In a popular vote, you would know ahead of time that your vote wouldn't make a bit of difference in the outcome, so what motivation would you have to vote?

I don't really see why your argument favors the popular vote over the electoral college.

You don't know the outcome ahead of time in national votes. All they have is estimates which turn out to be wrong many times. In non swing states, you do know the outcome ahead of time. Its certain enough that the campaigns ignore these states.

[belian78]

Yes, but the elections are ultimately decided by the swing states, minority. The outcome is already known for the rest of the states. Votes in swing states simply count more than votes in other states. Therefore the minority is making decisions for the majority.
The problem you are describing is a problem with the level of political awareness of the populace, not with the system. If we had an informed populace, and one that actually paid attention to their respresentatives beyond what color their party was, there would be no swing states and otherwise.

[erowe1]

You don't know the outcome ahead of time in national votes.
But you do know ahead of time that your vote won't make a difference. And the argument you made was based on having a motivation to vote.


Its certain enough that the campaigns ignore these states.
OK, I'll bite. Why is this a bad thing?

[tttppp]

The problem you are describing is a problem with the level of political awareness of the populace, not with the system. If we had an informed populace, and one that actually paid attention to their respresentatives beyond what color their party was, there would be no swing states and otherwise.

That's why I have suggested removing the parties' names from the ballots and requiring a short test on the candidates positions, that way we don't have what we have now where people just select the party they want and ignore the fact that sometimes your candidate is not really part of that party, like Romney.

[tttppp]

But you do know ahead of time that your vote won't make a difference. And the argument you made was based on having a motivation to vote.


OK, I'll bite. Why is this a bad thing?

You don't know that. Its still possible for your vote to count.

[erowe1]

That's why I have suggested removing the parties' names from the ballots and requiring a short test on the candidates positions
Removing parties sounds great (the test, not so much), but that's entirely separate from getting rid of the electoral college.


ignore the fact that sometimes your candidate is not really part of that party, like Romney.
Romney is very much a part of the Republican party, in every way. You could hardly find a better representative of the GOP than him. Ron Paul is the one who's a Republican in name only.

[erowe1]

You don't know that. Its still possible for your vote to count.

It's still possible for CT to vote for Romney.

Impossible you say? Sure, for all intents and purposes. But you making the difference in a nationwide popular vote is probably even less likely than that.

[erowe1]

Actually, if we had a real electoral college system, where you only vote for the electors and not the presidential candidates, I'd probably take more interest in supporting that. As it is though, I just see what we have now as a poor excuse for something republican.

[Uriah]

I suggest everyone who hasnt watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

Anyone who thinks an election with the popular vote would only be focused on the cities is plain wrong. After NYC the population of cities in America drop drastically. By the time you get to the 10th largest city (San jose) your already under a million people. Adding all top 10 cities only gives you roughly 25 million people. Compare that to the remaining 275 million. Yea so just campaigning in cities wont cut it.

It might not be perfect but its a hell of a lot better then the current system. Anyone who thinks its better the minority rule the majority (in this case rural compared to urban/suburban) just because the rural vote might be more sympathetic to our cause then the urban vote is going against libertarian principles.

Popular vote is the way to go but for the legislatures we need proportional voting with party lists.

Cities are not isolated. The 10 largest cities in America form metro areas. These are easily identifiable and viewed more as 'media markets' rather than separate individual cities. The 10 largest metro areas in the USA are 81 million plus Americans.

The premise of the video uses an argument for the principal of equality. In the video, it is stated that the electoral college violates this principle while not addressing exactly what the electoral college is and why it was established; beyond superficial propaganda. The intent of the electoral college was not to make presidential candidates pay more attention to small states. It was created so each state had a fair voice in the selection of their administrator. Remember, the federal government represents and is a tool of the several sovereign states. The states represent the people and the federal government represents the states.

The video makes the point that the electoral college doesn't make candidates pay attention to small states. I agree with this and the fact that presidential candidates also don't give attention the the three largest states. The video uses this and more as evidence against the electoral college. It is clearly obvious to me that candidates don't pay attention to these states because American politics is completely polarized, divisive, and corrupt. Candidates don't have to pay attention to small states, large states, and most of the states because laws have been written in favor of the two major parties and against all other parties. If all parties, and individuals had fair access to running for office at the federal level then candidates would be more responsive to small states, large states, and most states.

Error of fact: not all states are winner take all. Nebraska and Maine are by congressional district and state-wide winner. States may choose how their electors are chosen. Electors had in the past, been chosen by state legislators.

What the authors of this video fail to see is not some violation of equality and fairness (the electoral college actually uses these principles for the states as the federal government was intended) but the underpinning of American republicanism by big-money fascist authoritarians. It is these individuals that have created a corrupt and politically divisive nation that has become unresponsive to it's people.

I find the video offensive when it states that you can win with only 22% of the popular vote, in a democracy. The United States of America is not a democracy. Please understand this. The founders consciously and specifically avoided becoming a democracy. Please learn why. The United States of America is a republic. Learn what that means.

[VanBummel]

I consider it a done deal. Once the Democrats decide to do something, they never stop. Republicans might play defense, nothing more.

This. :(

[Uriah]

You can take the money out of politics and create a different system. A national vote does not lead to more coruption unles you want it to.

I was pointing out that candidates will mostly campaign in big metro areas. If you are backed by big monied interests then you can easily advertise while not necessarily listening to the views of a majority of Americans(geographically).

[tttppp]

Removing parties sounds great (the test, not so much), but that's entirely separate from getting rid of the electoral college.


Romney is very much a part of the Republican party, in every way. You could hardly find a better representative of the GOP than him. Ron Paul is the one who's a Republican in name only.

I disagree. Ron Paul is what a republican is supposed to be. Everyone else is a fraud. They talk about the same things,but they want big government as much as democrats. Romney is as much of a fraud as anyone else.

[tttppp]

I was pointing out that candidates will mostly campaign in big metro areas. If you are backed by big monied interests then you can easily advertise while not necessarily listening to the views of a majority of Americans(geographically).

That's what happens now. Only swing states are listened to. Although I don't think they give a crap about anyones views.

[Uriah]

Actually, if we had a real electoral college system, where you only vote for the electors and not the presidential candidates, I'd probably take more interest in supporting that. As it is though, I just see what we have now as a poor excuse for something republican.

I am in favor of this. Or returning the selection of electors back to the state legislators. Or at the least, make it winner-take-all by congressional district.

[James Madison]

False dichotomy is false.

The electoral college decides who is elected president. Under the Constitution the president is little more than a figure head, having no observable impact on the day-to-day lives of the electorate. How the government is elected isn't as important as how the government manages its job as a protector of rights. The individual has authority to live their life as they see fit and without intervention from the state. Liberals are more intent on forcing their opinions upon the public by force, so naturally they will favor direct democracy, where the majority dictates what is acceptable to the minority.

[farreri]

Who's for proportional representation? If the Libertarian Party gets 5% of the vote, then they get 5% of the seats in congress. That's 5% more than we have now.

[tttppp]

It's still possible for CT to vote for Romney.

Impossible you say? Sure, for all intents and purposes. But you making the difference in a nationwide popular vote is probably even less likely than that.

The only reason Romney has even a very poor chance in CT is because he was governor next door. If it wasn't for that, he'd have no chance.

[farreri]

False dichotomy is false.

The electoral college decides who is elected president. Under the Constitution the president is little more than a figure head, having no observable impact on the day-to-day lives of the electorate. How the government is elected isn't as important as how the government manages its job as a protector of rights. The individual has authority to live their life as they see fit and without intervention from the state.
This is basically what I said earlier.


Liberals are more intent on forcing their opinions upon the public by force, so naturally they will favor direct democracy, where the majority dictates what is acceptable to the minority.
And conservatives don't?!?!?

[steph3n]

Who's for proportional representation? If the Libertarian Party gets 5% of the vote, then they get 5% of the seats in congress. That's 5% more than we have now.

It would grow to 10-15% if proportional representation were done, and there would even be a vocal green movement with 3-5%....

[erowe1]

The only reason Romney has even a very poor chance in CT is because he was governor next door. If it wasn't for that, he'd have no chance.

Pick any state you want.

Romney's odds of winning California are greater than the odds of your one vote deciding a national election. So are Obama's odds of winning Mississippi.

[James Madison]

This is basically what I said earlier.


And conservatives don't?!?!?

Conservatives aren't pushing for direct democracy.

[erowe1]

Conservatives aren't pushing for direct democracy.

It's really more of a partisan thing than an ideological thing. Switching to a national popular vote would help the D's and hurt the R's.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

More corruption from a 'national vote'? It certainly doesn't disincentivize it, so it could very well remain the same or increase, but I doubt such a system would reduce corruption. Not only that, such a system would pretty much make 90% of the country irrelevant. You have a better shot getting your own folks out to vote than trying to persuade on-the-fencers, and small-population areas. So, any state with >4,000,000 people would become irrelevant as well as homogenous states (e.g. New York for D's, Texas for R's). Irrelevant as in you won't even see a peep from the opposing parties. All electioneering would come down to large population centers that have large segment of homogenous folks. In other words Get out the Vote would be the primary method of campaigning. Debates would be meaningless, though they're pretty meaningless now-a-days anyways, as well as disenfranchising 90% of the States. There's a reason every State gets two Senators and there is an Electoral College.

You may say that such a system disenfranchises larger states, but larger states still have an equal say as anyone else - not no say. In a popular system these states literally have no say. Your 70,000 voters in bumsquat shitsville state - Wyoming for instance, aren't even a drop in the hat to a smaller New York sub-burrough. It's bad enough as it is now-a-days where certain states control other states - let's not exacerbate that situation.

[RPfan1992]

Im not sure if this will help but if every state had the same number of electoral votes that might even it out.

[James Madison]

Im not sure if this will help but if every state had the same number of electoral votes that might even it out.

Technically we already have that in the form the Senate. Of course, the Senate has abdicated much of its authority to the Executive.

[Smart3]

Im not sure if this will help but if every state had the same number of electoral votes that might even it out.
How would that help? The Dems would be guaranteed victory every election.

[erowe1]

How would that help? The Dems would be guaranteed victory every election.

It's the exact opposite.

If every state had equal electors, then the campaigns would focus on the 25 least populus states, which are generally Republican states.

[gwax23]

Cities are not isolated. The 10 largest cities in America form metro areas. These are easily identifiable and viewed more as 'media markets' rather than separate individual cities. The 10 largest metro areas in the USA are 81 million plus Americans.

The premise of the video uses an argument for the principal of equality. In the video, it is stated that the electoral college violates this principle while not addressing exactly what the electoral college is and why it was established; beyond superficial propaganda. The intent of the electoral college was not to make presidential candidates pay more attention to small states. It was created so each state had a fair voice in the selection of their administrator. Remember, the federal government represents and is a tool of the several sovereign states. The states represent the people and the federal government represents the states.

The video makes the point that the electoral college doesn't make candidates pay attention to small states. I agree with this and the fact that presidential candidates also don't give attention the the three largest states. The video uses this and more as evidence against the electoral college. It is clearly obvious to me that candidates don't pay attention to these states because American politics is completely polarized, divisive, and corrupt. Candidates don't have to pay attention to small states, large states, and most of the states because laws have been written in favor of the two major parties and against all other parties. If all parties, and individuals had fair access to running for office at the federal level then candidates would be more responsive to small states, large states, and most states.

Error of fact: not all states are winner take all. Nebraska and Maine are by congressional district and state-wide winner. States may choose how their electors are chosen. Electors had in the past, been chosen by state legislators.

What the authors of this video fail to see is not some violation of equality and fairness (the electoral college actually uses these principles for the states as the federal government was intended) but the underpinning of American republicanism by big-money fascist authoritarians. It is these individuals that have created a corrupt and politically divisive nation that has become unresponsive to it's people.

I find the video offensive when it states that you can win with only 22% of the popular vote, in a democracy. The United States of America is not a democracy. Please understand this. The founders consciously and specifically avoided becoming a democracy. Please learn why. The United States of America is a republic. Learn what that means.


So if the electoral college doesnt even help represent small states its one weak reason for existence is nullified. Not to mention even if it did represent the country over the city how is that fair exactly? If a huge % of the population lives in metro areas they SHOULD be represented in a democracy.

The fact is our current system including the electoral college dont allow multiple parties or multiple candidates to really run. Thats why we need Proportional party list elections for the legislature and Instant Runoff Voting for president (IRV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting)

We shouldnt hold the constitution up as perfection created by god almighty himself. Its flawed and old document and if it was as perfect as everyone made it out to be we never would of been in the mess we are today.

Libertarians shouldnt have to be devout constitutionalists especially when the constitution is wrong. And it is when it comes to the electoral college.

[Uriah]

So if the electoral college doesnt even help represent small states its one weak reason for existence is nullified. Not to mention even if it did represent the country over the city how is that fair exactly? If a huge % of the population lives in metro areas they SHOULD be represented in a democracy.

The fact is our current system including the electoral college dont allow multiple parties or multiple candidates to really run. Thats why we need Proportional party list elections for the legislature and Instant Runoff Voting for president (IRV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting)

We shouldnt hold the constitution up as perfection created by god almighty himself. Its flawed and old document and if it was as perfect as everyone made it out to be we never would of been in the mess we are today.

Libertarians shouldnt have to be devout constitutionalists especially when the constitution is wrong. And it is when it comes to the electoral college.

I think you missed my point. I said candidates don't pay attention to small states. Smalls states are represented in the electoral college. Each state has a fair and equal voice based upon two considerations: 1) the fact that they are a state within the USA and 2)population of the state. Under current law, the US House of Representatives is capped at 435 legislators. If the law is changed to increase this number then there will be more electors. The number of electors is equal to the number of senators and representatives plus 3 electors from DC.

I think the constitution is great. Not perfect. There are flaws that need to be addressed but moving this country to a directly elected president by popular vote is moving in the wrong direction. It is a fallacy to think this country wouldn't be in a mess today if the constitution was a perfect document. The people must at all times be vigorous in holding the government accountable if we the people do not want a mess. Unfortunately, millions of Americans have not been vigilant for decades upon decades.

[tttppp]

Pick any state you want.

Romney's odds of winning California are greater than the odds of your one vote deciding a national election. So are Obama's odds of winning Mississippi.

At least in the national vote, it does switch from democrat to republican occasionally. It rarely does that in non swing states.

[Pauls' Revere]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/wall-street-prepares-for-the-end-of-a-crucial-era/ar-AAGnVgN

At issue is whether states can require their appointed electors to cast ballots for the candidate favored by most of the state’s voters on election day, or if electors may instead choose whomever they wish when convening a few weeks later. Rebellions by state electors have been a rarity in history, but a recent court ruling gave electors greater freedom to vote their conscience, and that could tip the outcome in a close election.

Article II of the Constitution created the electoral college to elect the president, rather than relying on a direct vote of the people. It says that states “shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors” that reflects the population of the state. Those electors in turn would vote for the president and vice president.

Since the early 1800s, this system has operated as “largely a formality,” the Washington state Supreme Court said in May. The electors, by pledge and often by law, cast their votes based on how their states vote. The candidate who wins the most votes in the state wins all the electoral votes, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, where electoral votes can sometimes be split among candidates.

But last week, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upset the conventional understanding by ruling the electors have a “constitutional right” to vote as they wish for president, even if state law requires them to abide by the people’s choice.

The appeals court ruled for Micheal Baca, a Democratic elector in Colorado, who in 2016 cast his ballot for Ohio Gov. John Kasich, even though Hillary Clinton won the majority of Colorado’s votes. He was among several so-called faithless electors who in 2016 voted against the choice of their state’s voters.

Writing for a 2-1 majority, Appellate Judge Carolyn McHugh focused on the words used in 1787.

“The definitions of elector, vote and ballot have a common theme: They all imply the right to make a choice or voice an individual opinion. We therefore agree with Mr. Baca that the use of these terms supports a determination that the electors, once appointed, are free to vote as they choose,” she said in Baca vs. Colorado. “The text of the Constitution makes clear that the states do not have the constitutional authority to interfere with the presidential electors who exercise their constitutional right to vote for the president or vice president candidates of their choice.”

Colorado’s Secretary of State Jena Griswold said the decision “takes power from Colorado voters and sets a dangerous precedent.” State officials said they expect to appeal.

Los Angeles lawyer Jason Harrow, who represented Baca and the group Equal Citizens, said he will appeal the issue to the Supreme Court in a similar case from Washington state that resulted in an opposite ruling.

“We now have a split, and there’s no need to wait longer,” he said. “We want a decision before the 2020 election, and the sooner the better.”

Unlike the 10th Circuit, the Washington state Supreme Court said the Constitution “gives to the state absolute authority in the manner of appointing electors. ... The power of electors to vote comes from the state, and the elector has no personal right to that role.”

By an 8-1 vote, the state court rejected a constitutional claim brought on behalf of Levi Guerra and two other Democratic electors from Washington who were fined $1,000 because they did not cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton, who had won the state.

Harvard law professor Larry Lessig, who founded the Equal Citizens project and argued the Washington state case, said the aim is to “reform” the electoral college. “We know electoral college contests are going to be closer in the future than they have been in the past, and as they get closer and closer, even a small number of electors could change the result of an election,” he said in response to the Colorado ruling. “Whether you think that’s a good system or not, we believe it is critical to resolve it before it would decide an election.”

If the Supreme Court receives an appeal in the weeks ahead in either the Washington or Colorado case, the justices are not likely to act on it for several months. They could opt to steer clear of the issue, but some legal experts said the specter of another Bush vs. Gore election dispute case could prompt them to decide the issue as soon as possible.

In December 2000, the Supreme Court chose to intervene in the ballot-recount battle in Florida, where the outcome would determine whether then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush or Vice President Al Gore would win the White House.

Ohio State law professor Ned Foley, an expert on the electoral college, said the justices “could easily avoid” deciding on the role of the electors, but “the strongest argument for taking it up now is they don’t want to decide it on the Bush vs. Gore timetable.”

He was referring to the fact that the justices had only a few days to decide a complicated dispute.

Pepperdine law professor Derek T. Muller, who also has written extensively on the electoral college, said the Supreme Court may see a need to review the 10th Circuit’s broad view of the role of electors.

“The breath of this opinion — a suggestion that there’s a virtually unfettered choice — is what’s the most remarkable part of it,” he said. “For decades, electors and states have had an uneasy kind of truce. Electors typically aren’t faithless, and states have wielded the threat of replacement. This opinion, however, collapses that truce. Electors are now instructed that they can vote for whomever they want, and replacement is not an option. One wonder whether electors will be more inclined to stray in 2020, particularly given fawning attention from disgruntled voters.”

[Pauls' Revere]

Can anyone tell me who the hell are the electors anyway? and what prevents them from being paid off? and why aren't we electing them?

[Swordsmyth]

Can anyone tell me who the hell are the electors anyway? and what prevents them from being paid off? and why aren't we electing them?
They are picked by the campaigns and you are actually voting for them, I would prefer that the voters just control the EC votes of their states in the current system but in my system you would be voting directly for the electors some or all of whom would be the Presidential contenders themselves.

[Pauls' Revere]

They are picked by the campaigns and you are actually voting for them, I would prefer that the voters just control the EC votes of their states in the current system but in my system you would be voting directly for the electors some or all of whom would be the Presidential contenders themselves.

Not sure I trust it. I understand no system is perfect. Maybe, a proportional popular vote weighted by population density? IDK, spitballing here.

[Swordsmyth]

Not sure I trust it. I understand no system is perfect. Maybe, a proportional popular vote weighted by population density? IDK, spitballing here.
My system is entirely different, each state would get two EC votes to hand out that represent its Senators and the EC votes that represent House seats would be handed out proportionally based on a nationwide vote.
Each Elector candidate could win an unlimited number of EC votes.

You can see more about it here: A new system of government (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?536723-A-new-system-of-government)

[GunnyFreedom]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/wall-street-prepares-for-the-end-of-a-crucial-era/ar-AAGnVgN

At issue is whether states can require their appointed electors to cast ballots for the candidate favored by most of the state’s voters on election day, or if electors may instead choose whomever they wish when convening a few weeks later. Rebellions by state electors have been a rarity in history, but a recent court ruling gave electors greater freedom to vote their conscience, and that could tip the outcome in a close election.

Article II of the Constitution created the electoral college to elect the president, rather than relying on a direct vote of the people. It says that states “shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors” that reflects the population of the state. Those electors in turn would vote for the president and vice president.

Since the early 1800s, this system has operated as “largely a formality,” the Washington state Supreme Court said in May. The electors, by pledge and often by law, cast their votes based on how their states vote. The candidate who wins the most votes in the state wins all the electoral votes, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, where electoral votes can sometimes be split among candidates.

But last week, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upset the conventional understanding by ruling the electors have a “constitutional right” to vote as they wish for president, even if state law requires them to abide by the people’s choice.

The appeals court ruled for Micheal Baca, a Democratic elector in Colorado, who in 2016 cast his ballot for Ohio Gov. John Kasich, even though Hillary Clinton won the majority of Colorado’s votes. He was among several so-called faithless electors who in 2016 voted against the choice of their state’s voters.

Writing for a 2-1 majority, Appellate Judge Carolyn McHugh focused on the words used in 1787.

“The definitions of elector, vote and ballot have a common theme: They all imply the right to make a choice or voice an individual opinion. We therefore agree with Mr. Baca that the use of these terms supports a determination that the electors, once appointed, are free to vote as they choose,” she said in Baca vs. Colorado. “The text of the Constitution makes clear that the states do not have the constitutional authority to interfere with the presidential electors who exercise their constitutional right to vote for the president or vice president candidates of their choice.”

Colorado’s Secretary of State Jena Griswold said the decision “takes power from Colorado voters and sets a dangerous precedent.” State officials said they expect to appeal.

Los Angeles lawyer Jason Harrow, who represented Baca and the group Equal Citizens, said he will appeal the issue to the Supreme Court in a similar case from Washington state that resulted in an opposite ruling.

“We now have a split, and there’s no need to wait longer,” he said. “We want a decision before the 2020 election, and the sooner the better.”

Unlike the 10th Circuit, the Washington state Supreme Court said the Constitution “gives to the state absolute authority in the manner of appointing electors. ... The power of electors to vote comes from the state, and the elector has no personal right to that role.”

By an 8-1 vote, the state court rejected a constitutional claim brought on behalf of Levi Guerra and two other Democratic electors from Washington who were fined $1,000 because they did not cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton, who had won the state.

Harvard law professor Larry Lessig, who founded the Equal Citizens project and argued the Washington state case, said the aim is to “reform” the electoral college. “We know electoral college contests are going to be closer in the future than they have been in the past, and as they get closer and closer, even a small number of electors could change the result of an election,” he said in response to the Colorado ruling. “Whether you think that’s a good system or not, we believe it is critical to resolve it before it would decide an election.”

If the Supreme Court receives an appeal in the weeks ahead in either the Washington or Colorado case, the justices are not likely to act on it for several months. They could opt to steer clear of the issue, but some legal experts said the specter of another Bush vs. Gore election dispute case could prompt them to decide the issue as soon as possible.

In December 2000, the Supreme Court chose to intervene in the ballot-recount battle in Florida, where the outcome would determine whether then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush or Vice President Al Gore would win the White House.

Ohio State law professor Ned Foley, an expert on the electoral college, said the justices “could easily avoid” deciding on the role of the electors, but “the strongest argument for taking it up now is they don’t want to decide it on the Bush vs. Gore timetable.”

He was referring to the fact that the justices had only a few days to decide a complicated dispute.

Pepperdine law professor Derek T. Muller, who also has written extensively on the electoral college, said the Supreme Court may see a need to review the 10th Circuit’s broad view of the role of electors.

“The breath of this opinion — a suggestion that there’s a virtually unfettered choice — is what’s the most remarkable part of it,” he said. “For decades, electors and states have had an uneasy kind of truce. Electors typically aren’t faithless, and states have wielded the threat of replacement. This opinion, however, collapses that truce. Electors are now instructed that they can vote for whomever they want, and replacement is not an option. One wonder whether electors will be more inclined to stray in 2020, particularly given fawning attention from disgruntled voters.”
It’s a shame none of this covered Bill Greene of TX who voted Ron Paul in the 2016 EC

[Zippyjuan]

Trump's thoughts on the Electoral College (back in 2012- he has probably changed his mind since- like he does on a lot of things). Obama did actually win the popular vote as well.

266038556504494082

266034630820507648

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2012/11/trump-is-election-nights-most-unhinged-goper.html?gtm=top


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0HUrRqWgAIcn-0.jpg:large

[Pauls' Revere]

It’s a shame none of this covered Bill Greene of TX who voted Ron Paul in the 2016 EC

My worry is this inter-state committee collusion and that it will effectively eliminate the Electoral College.

[GunnyFreedom]

My worry is this inter-state committee collusion and that it will effectively eliminate the Electoral College.
Well, one of the ideas here is the States are free to do what they want. Including to collude on electoral votes. I don’t imagine it will ever be enough to change the outcome in the post TV era. The one thing that would be bad here is if the Feds tried to regulate the EC and tell the States what to do. Regulating the electors is a State function. If the States want to go Proportional that’s their decision to make. If the States want to just reflect the popular vote and ignore their own State well that’s on them too. I think it’s stupid, but it’s within their legal right.

[Zippyjuan]

Now this is probably some psycho radical idea, but why not have people vote themselves? Instead of having somebody or a few somebodies vote for the entire state who will not all agree with the pick? You pick who YOU want to vote for. Add them all up. Most votes wins.

[GunnyFreedom]

Now this is probably some psycho radical idea, but why not have people vote themselves? Instead of having somebody or a few somebodies vote for the entire state who will not all agree with the pick? You pick who YOU want to vote for. Add them all up. Most votes wins.
Because that would be a democracy, which idea the Framers explicitly rejected as unworkable.

[Zippyjuan]

Because that would be a democracy, which idea the Framers explicitly rejected as unworkable.

They wanted elites in control. The initial concept was that the states would send their best people as Senators and then the Senators would pick the president from among themselves. The elite of the elite. That is of course not the final version. But voters had to be wealthy (landowners) and males. No women or slaves allowed. A corporatocracy if you will.

[Pauls' Revere]

Now this is probably some psycho radical idea, but why not have people vote themselves? Instead of having somebody or a few somebodies vote for the entire state who will not all agree with the pick? You pick who YOU want to vote for. Add them all up. Most votes wins.

I would agree but what about rural folks. In this system the five most populated cities decide what a country does. Nope, not onboard with that. I think the electors should be held to vote according to what people vote for. If they can (and do) change their minds, they are effectively cancelling my vote or yours.

[Pauls' Revere]

Well, one of the ideas here is the States are free to do what they want. Including to collude on electoral votes. I don’t imagine it will ever be enough to change the outcome in the post TV era. The one thing that would be bad here is if the Feds tried to regulate the EC and tell the States what to do. Regulating the electors is a State function. If the States want to go Proportional that’s their decision to make. If the States want to just reflect the popular vote and ignore their own State well that’s on them too. I think it’s stupid, but it’s within their legal right.

Yep. It may end up flipping this thing on its head but states do what they do.

[Pauls' Revere]

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/why-we-are-republic-not-democracy

Hillary Clinton blamed the Electoral College for her stunning defeat in the 2016 presidential election in her latest memoirs, “What Happened.”
Some have claimed that the Electoral College is one of the most dangerous institutions in American politics.
Why? They say the Electoral College system, as opposed to a simple majority vote, distorts the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy because electoral votes are not distributed according to population.
To back up their claim, they point out that the Electoral College gives, for example, Wyoming citizens disproportionate weight in a presidential election.
Put another way, Wyoming, a state with a population of about 600,000, has one member in the House of Representatives and two members in the U.S. Senate, which gives the citizens of Wyoming three electoral votes, or one electoral vote per 200,000 people.
California, our most populous state, has more than 39 million people and 55 electoral votes, or approximately one vote per 715,000 people.
Comparatively, individuals in Wyoming have nearly four times the power in the Electoral College as Californians.
Many people whine that using the Electoral College instead of the popular vote and majority rule is undemocratic. I’d say that they are absolutely right. Not deciding who will be the president by majority rule is not democracy.
But the Founding Fathers went to great lengths to ensure that we were a republic and not a democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or any other of our founding documents.
How about a few quotations expressed by the Founders about democracy?
In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wanted to prevent rule by majority faction, saying, “Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”
John Adams warned in a letter, “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet, that did not commit suicide.”
Edmund Randolph said, “That in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”
Then-Chief Justice John Marshall observed, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”
The Founders expressed contempt for the tyranny of majority rule, and throughout our Constitution, they placed impediments to that tyranny. Two houses of Congress pose one obstacle to majority rule. That is, 51 senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators.
The president can veto the wishes of 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto.
To change the Constitution requires not a majority but a two-thirds vote of both houses, and if an amendment is approved, it requires ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.
Finally, the Electoral College is yet another measure that thwarts majority rule. It makes sure that the highly populated states—today, mainly 12 on the east and west coasts, cannot run roughshod over the rest of the nation. That forces a presidential candidate to take into consideration the wishes of the other 38 states.
Those Americans obsessed with rule by popular majorities might want to get rid of the Senate, where states, regardless of population, have two senators.
Should we change representation in the House of Representatives to a system of proportional representation and eliminate the guarantee that each state gets at least one representative?
Currently, seven states with populations of 1 million or fewer have one representative, thus giving them disproportionate influence in Congress.
While we’re at it, should we make all congressional acts by majority rule? When we’re finished with establishing majority rule in Congress, should we then move to change our court system, which requires unanimity in jury decisions, to a simple majority rule?
My question is: Is it ignorance of or contempt for our Constitution that fuels the movement to abolish the Electoral College?
This article has been republished with permission from The Daily Signal.

[Pauls' Revere]

https://people.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college.htm

Since then, a push to reform the Electoral College has been gaining steam. As of December 2016, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that mandates electoral votes go to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. In addition, 12 other states have passed a reform bill through one house. Still more states are introducing an Electoral College reform bill or discussing it in committee [source: National Popular Vote]. This National Popular Vote law would take effect only when it's been passed by enough states to have a total number of electoral votes of 270.


The DEMS are pushing the Popular Vote. So far the total is 165 electoral votes. Only 105 electoral votes needed to have popular vote become law. If Texas and Virginia go blue it would bring the total to 216. Then, you begin to look at states like PA,NC,OH,WI.

https://www.thoughtco.com/electoral-votes-by-state-in-2016-3322035

The dissolution of the Electoral College will Balkanize the USA.

[Swordsmyth]

https://people.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college.htm

Since then, a push to reform the Electoral College has been gaining steam. As of December 2016, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that mandates electoral votes go to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. In addition, 12 other states have passed a reform bill through one house. Still more states are introducing an Electoral College reform bill or discussing it in committee [source: National Popular Vote]. This National Popular Vote law would take effect only when it's been passed by enough states to have a total number of electoral votes of 270.


The DEMS are pushing the Popular Vote. So far the total is 165 electoral votes. Only 105 electoral votes needed to have popular vote become law. If Texas and Virginia go blue it would bring the total to 216. Then, you begin to look at states like PA,NC,OH,WI.

https://www.thoughtco.com/electoral-votes-by-state-in-2016-3322035

The dissolution of the Electoral College will Balkanize the USA.

It's unconstitutional and if allowed to stand it would be the end of the union.

[Pauls' Revere]

It's unconstitutional and if allowed to stand it would be the end of the union.

According to the article. 16 states have already passed legislation. I don't know if any of those have been challenged in court. If Texas & Virginia pass similar laws that brings the total to 216. And I agree, it would end the union.

[Swordsmyth]

According to the article. 16 states have already passed legislation. I don't know if any of those have been challenged in court. If Texas & Virginia pass similar laws that brings the total to 216. And I agree, it would end the union.
It will go to SCOTUS if it ever becomes active.

[Pauls' Revere]

It will go to SCOTUS if it ever becomes active.

You think so? If it reaches 270 they would amend the constitution?

[Anti Globalist]

Getting rid of the electoral college will make it a lot easier for Democrats to win elections.

[Swordsmyth]

You think so? If it reaches 270 they would amend the constitution?
I don't think they will amend anything, I think they will attempt to use the agreement when it hits 270 and the "losing" candidate will sue.

SCOTUS should reject the agreement as unconstitutional.

[TomtheTinker]

Go ahead and end it. Hopefully the other 48 states outside of NY and CA will throw a big stink over not having the power they thought they did. The quicker people wake up the quicker this country heals.

Honestly I think the best thing that could happen is Bernie wins and the democrats take command of both houses of congress. They enact all the "reforms" from getting rid of electoral college to sweeping gun control and what ever else their delusional corrupted hearts desires. The left wont be able to help themselves from over playing their hand and it's the only chance we have for people to truly wake up.

[Pauls' Revere]

Honestly I think the best thing that could happen is Bernie wins and the democrats take command of both houses of congress. They enact all the "reforms" from getting rid of electoral college to sweeping gun control and what ever else their delusional corrupted hearts desires. The left wont be able to help themselves from over playing their hand and it's the only chance we have for people to truly wake up.

Sadly, I think your right.

[Pauls' Revere]

I don't think they will amend anything, I think they will attempt to use the agreement when it hits 270 and the "losing" candidate will sue.

SCOTUS should reject the agreement as unconstitutional.

If the SCOTUS isn't stuffed with judges that agree with it.

[Swordsmyth]

If the SCOTUS isn't stuffed with judges that agree with it.
That's one reason we need to keep Trump.

[Pauls' Revere]

That's one reason we need to keep Trump.

Hypothetically speaking, what would happen if there was no Supreme Court? :confused:

Would they let 9 people stand in their way?

[Swordsmyth]

Hypothetically speaking, what would happen if there was no Supreme Court? :confused:

Would they let 9 people stand in their way?
If there was no SCOTUS there would be some other way to challenge its constitutionality.

If they want to secede over the EC I welcome that and if they uprise they can be put down with prejudice for trying to conquer the rest of us.

[Pauls' Revere]

If there was no SCOTUS there would be some other way to challenge its constitutionality.

If they want to secede over the EC I welcome that and if they uprise they can be put down with prejudice for trying to conquer the rest of us.

Assuming they have regard for The Constitution.

[Swordsmyth]

Assuming they have regard for The Constitution.

That's why I mentioned secession and uprising.

[Pauls' Revere]

That's why I mentioned secession and uprising.

If the EC goes, its over.

[Swordsmyth]

If the EC goes, its over.
Yup.

Lights out.

[Pauls' Revere]

I'm in favor of the Electoral College, wonder what Biden thinks about this?


https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/bigideas/its-time-to-abolish-the-electoral-college/

Ways to abolish the Electoral College
The U.S. Constitution created the Electoral College but did not spell out how the votes get awarded to presidential candidates. That vagueness has allowed some states such as Maine and Nebraska to reject “winner-take-all” at the state level and instead allocate votes at the congressional district level. However, the Constitution’s lack of specificity also presents the opportunity that states could allocate their Electoral College votes through some other means.

One such mechanism that a number of states already support is an interstate pact that honors the national popular vote. Since 2008, 15 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), which is an multi-state agreement to commit electors to vote for candidates who win the nationwide popular vote, even if that candidate loses the popular vote within their state. The NPVIC would become effective only if states ratify it to reach an electoral majority of 270 votes.

Right now, the NPVIC is well short of that goal and would require an additional 74 electoral votes to take effect. It also faces some particular challenges. First, it is unclear how voters would respond if their state electors collectively vote against the popular vote of their state. Second, there are no binding legal repercussions if a state elector decides to defect from the national popular vote. Third, given the Tenth Circuit decision in the Baca v. Hickenlooper case described above, the NPVIC is almost certain to face constitutional challenges should it ever gain enough electoral votes to go into effect.

A more permanent solution would be to amend the Constitution itself. That is a laborious process and a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College would require significant consensus—at least two-thirds affirmation from both the House and Senate, and approval from at least 38 out of 50 states. But Congress has nearly reached this threshold in the past. Congress nearly eradicated the Electoral College in 1934, falling just two Senate votes short of passage.

However, the conversation did not end after the unsuccessful vote, legislators have continued to debate ending or reforming the Electoral College since. In 1979, another Senate vote to establish a direct popular vote failed, this time by just three votes. Nonetheless, conversation continued: the 95th Congress proposed a total of 41 relevant amendments in 1977 and 1978, and the 116th Congress has already introduced three amendments to end the Electoral College. In total, over the last two centuries, there have been over 700 proposals to either eradicate or seriously modify the Electoral College. It is time to move ahead with abolishing the Electoral College before its clear failures undermine public confidence in American democracy, distort the popular will, and create a genuine constitutional crisis.

[DirtMcGirt]

I wonder if this will be on the Dems radar the next 4 years or just slowly chip away at the EC state by state

[Badnon Wissenshaftler]

I will admit that I am somewhat ignorant of the original intent of the Founders regarding the Electoral College, and have some reading to do. Surely, it sounds undemocratic, but the Founders didn't care so much for direct democracies, and their capricious and vacillating character.

To this point, however, I do believe that Founders found the office of President to be precarious, and only meant to be a figurehead and a final check on the powers of Congress. But the Constitutional caveat into which we currently fall is that the federal government itself was meant to be much less consequential than it has become. With such limited scope, Presidential elections should've been much less contentious.